When I inaugurated the Stereogum Douchebag of the Week last Friday, I was fairly certain that I’d make it a weekly feature. But somehow, the idea that this meant I would actually have to do it every week eluded me. That’s quite a commitment, and harder than it sounds. I mean, Blue States Lose makes insulting clueless hipsters on a weekly basis look so effortless.

Oh, let’s be honest: that’s because it is.

This week, Stereogum brought us an embarrassment of douchebaggy riches by posting on four general trends that are sure-fire categories in which indie-rock teenagers will get their underwear in a bunch. These are:

Celebrities, especially Scientologists. I’m not actually going to address this post or its subsequent comments because the initial subject is, in itself, the very distillation of inanity. But it’s fun to watch hardcore Sg readers take Scott to task for posting about TomKat or Britney instead of the secret Wolf Parade afterparty at an undisclosed location somewhere on the LSE.

Commercial vs. Indie. For some extremely naïve people, there is still a clear distinction to be drawn between these supposed cultural forces. These people, in turn, provide endless entertainment for the rest of us who weren’t born yesterday and are aware that we live in a capitalist economy where all art is a commodity. This week, it’s Jack White’s Coke commercial that’s forever shaken the faith of White Stripes fans who had convinced themselves that, until the very moment he sold his soul to Coca-Cola, he was keepin’ it real in punk-ethos obscurity.

Pitchfork-bashing. I already talked about this phenomenon last week. All Stereogum has to do is mention any two-syllable word beginning with a P, and it’s like dropping chum into a piranha tank. My favorite part of these threads is all the conspiracy theories about how PItchfork decides on an album’s rating:

“The more obscure the artist, the higher the rating.”

“Artists on labels who advertise on the site automatically get high ratings.”

“The third indie-label release from an artist, or second major-label release (whichever comes first) will, unless it’s an EP, get a rating 0.7 points lower than that band’s primary songwriter’s previous project, assuming the songwriter is not on Saddle Creek and/or British, and has played or is slated to headline Pitchfork/Intonation festival on its second day. Check out my blog for proof!!!!!”

Well done, folks! You’ve cracked the Byzantine code by which this evil music-reviewing empire controls the whole world from behind the scenes, all Illuminati-stizz.

Formerly cool, subversive bands getting older. I might as well just call this the Pearl Jam Effect, since they seem to bear its brunt the hardest. There’s nothing funnier than seeing a bunch of people who were in kindergarten when Ten came out rend their garments about how washed-up Eddie Vedder is. As for the older fans who do so, they should really know better: all art is cyclical. In a world where Neil Diamond can be cool again, anything is possible.

I’m tempted to present several Douchebags in each of these categories, but this entry’s already long enough. So I’ll try to keep the list of winners to a minimum. You can go read the threads yourself (and they’re long threads) for more charming idiocy.

Fourth place is reserved for a post that doesn’t fit into any of the above categories, but may soon develop a category of its own. I am speaking of Streets-bashing. I realize the Streets aren’t for everybody. But to me, Mike Skinner is untouchable, and he’s happened upon a formula that’s pure gold. I’m tempted to emulate the douchebags and say that people who hate on the Streets “just don’t get it.” But, maybe I’m biased because my brother and I like to listen to the Streets and pound beers while doing terrible working-class British accents. Anyway, here it is:

Vic, you’re not alone. I loved the first album but I couldn’t stand a single track off the new one. Total letdown. It’s not even barely tolerable.

Posted by: Nate MC at April 19, 2006 05:27 PM

Mr. MC is responding to a comment by Vic, who said: “anyone not impressed with the new material?” I like to picture Vic, Nate, and other people with soulless, icy stares and uncombed hair just sitting around a sterile, empty room doing nothing, waiting for that rare cultural or artistic ephemeron to come along and impress them (it never will), when a bulletin goes out over the Dipshit Wire that someone is, wantonly and without remorse, allowing themselves to enjoy a “barely tolerable” song. A siren sounds, and Vic and Co. make tracks for the TakingyourselfwaytooseriouslyMobile, speeding off to the latest contested territory to strafe it with their blasé shock and awe. Another soldier in this right and honorable fight, “amy,” submits that, “‘when you wasn’t famous’ is one of the worst songs I’ve ever heard in my life. fact.” Of course, it’s the “fact” part that cracks me up. If I were to tell “amy” that “When You Wasn’t Famous” was one of the best songs I’ve ever heard in my life, would the ensuing logical fallacy make her head explode? I hope so.

Third place concerns the aforementioned Pearl Jam thread. The band was on “Saturday Night Live,” apparently, and Scott posted a link to a YouTube video of the performance. The way these posts usually go is that people write in to howl about how they never watch SNL anymore because it sucks, and they hate Pearl Jam now because they suck too, but they somehow still caught the clip, and … hated it.

I thought Pearl Jam was awful on SNL. There was not a hook in sight and their physical appearance and stage presence were embarrassing. They look like they’re trapped in the early to mid-90s and Eddie’s still doing that demonic facial contortion thing. Pathetic and disappointing (if you had expectations, which I really didn’t).

Posted by: Stephen at April 16, 2006 02:39 PM

No, see, Stephen, if you actually had no expectations, I don’t think you would have even posted to begin with. This wouldn’t even cross your radar. It would just be a distant blip that didn’t affect you positively or negatively, because you’d be a healthy, well-adjusted, uncynical person with better things to do on a Sunday afternoon.

The runner-up for this category, by the way, was a poster named “J” who said: “It [the performance] got me misty-eyed for integrity.” There’s another great bumper sticker slogan that makes absolutely no sense. “Misty-eyed for integrity.” And just when, pray tell, was this halcyon, integrity-suffused era for which you wax so nostalgic?

Speaking of integity, or at least some people’s misguided notions regarding it:

Second place resides in the Jack-White-Coke-commercial thread, which boasts so many asinine comments that it’s torture trying to pick just one. For those of you with lives, here’s a quick summary of this hotly contested issue:

Jack White wrote a song for a Coke commercial.

Anyway, here’s the winning comment:

Let’s face it, call it ’sell out’ or ‘give in’, if a man’s passion means so little to him that he would sell those very ideas to a branded product then why should that passion mean anything to us? I know that there is little money to be made in music, due to downloading and copying (supposedly), but White is already an established artist. I’m sure he’s not short of a few dollars. Alternative Rock is long dead. It has no morals, no integrity.

Ad makers don’t use the tracks ’cause they think it’s ‘hip’ or ’slammingly beautiful’, they use them ’cause they think that it’ll appeal to indie idiots, 18 – 30, to sell more product. Judging by the comments, they’ve succeeded…

If any of my favourite musicians/artists ever degrade their worth by selling it for commercial fodder, I’ll develop a time machine, go back in time, find their pregnant mother, and abort their fucking souless fetus from her. I’m that passionate about it… and so should they be… (sigh)

Posted by: Davidt at April 19, 2006 05:10 AM

Possibly the greatest thing about this comment (aside from its hysterical pitch, its certitude regarding the definition of “Alternative Rock,” its vague invocation of rhetorical chimaera like “morals,” “passion,” and “integrity,” and the alarming tinge of misogyny in the final paragraph) is the fact that it’s not anonymous. That’s right, “Davidt” has a website, and he’s linked to it. And now I have too. Gosh, I hope Davidt doesn’t check his site referrals! (By which I mean that I really, really, hope he checks his site referrals.)

Last but certainly not least douchebagtastic, First place goes to a comment on the Pitchfork-bashing thread. This time it’s a story about an innovative fourth-grade teacher who had her students rate some currently popular albums, then compared them to Pitchfork reviews and found they were more or less in agreement. (For what it’s worth, I strongly support any integration of Ghostface into the curriculum.)

This post produced a lot of gems, including one my brother sent me earlier this week. Idiotic posts are made more idiotic when the Internet hiccups and someone double-posts. Even better is when you can see them editing or adding to their post during the hiccup, e.g.:

Pfork is lame.

Posted by: callitlikeiseeit at April 19, 2006 01:39 PM

Pfork is lame. Their snobbery backfired on them. Now I hate them, just like they hate good music. Way to go.

Posted by: callitlikeiseeit at April 19, 2006 01:40 PM

Way to go, indeed. I’m glad callitlikeiseeit (which I’m pretty sure is a Scandanavian surname meaning “Douchebag”) re-posted, or we would have missed out on his/her syllogistic explication of just why Pfork is so lame.

Believe it or not, that’s not the winning comment. No, that honor goes to “Dave”, who had this to say about Everyone’s Least-Favorite Bastion Of Evil Music-Hating Music Reviewing That They Nevertheless Visit And Read Every Day:

POST OF THE YEAR

Pitchfork has gotten every good album wrong this year by at least a point, if not more.

Posted by: Dave at April 20, 2006 12:05 AM

Apparently Dave has the answer key.

Really, I have to wonder if sometimes people like Dave are having us on. The only thing more ridiculous than a critic assigning an album point values to the nearest tenth is a sincere complaint about how errant that value is, or how the system needs to be recalibrated. Come on, Dave, you can’t be that stupid, can you?

(For further clues as to whether Dave is really that stupid, you can visit his website here.)

Phew. I told myself I was going to make this week’s installment short, and yet I’m pretty sure it’s longer than the last one. Jesus, what’s my problem? Anyway, thanks for indulging me and my complaining about complaining. I’m off to Vegas.

(Really, I am. I’ll post pictures next week, though I’ve heard that occurances transpiring in Las Vegas tend to remain there.)